Revolution Beats Disruption

Disruption has had a good run.

Since Clayton Christensen coined the term 'disruptive innovation' during the dotcom era it has gotten a lot of play as one of the most significant factors driving productive change, particularly in the technology universe which has come to encompass almost all aspects of human endeavor.

But as a civilization we still face an awful lot of challenges. Technology has not eliminated poverty or violence or many other human ills. It may have increased opportunity for many, but the pace of change is slow. Which is why tech leaders like Twitter's Jack Dorsey are advocating revolution. Not, we suspect, in a storm the barricades sense, but as a means of hastening the breakthroughs necessary to create a more just - and - more commercially viable global society. Especially as the two are intertwined in consumer driven economies.

Disruption merely distracts. Revolution offers profound change that can shift the axis of the enterprise and create new opportunities, significant in impact and scale.

How, exactly, to do this remains uncertain. But it is a conversation worth having and an effort worth making. JL

Greg Satell comments in Digital Tonto:

Jack Dorsey, the celebrated founder of Twitter and Square, who is the probably the man most often compared to Steve Jobs in Silicon Valley, urged his audience to seek not disruption, but revolution.

More specifically, he said that “Revolution has value, revolution has purpose — a direction and leaders… We don’t want ‘disruption,’ where we just move things around. We want a direction. We want a purpose.”

What Does Healthier Mean?

Words matter.

Organic food is the fastest growing segment of the food market.

The reasons are varied but are essentially based on the belief that organic foods are healthier because they are exposed to and contain fewer chemicals harmful to humans. The world has many developed, affluent societies with aging populations for whom longevity has become a prominent issue. In developing countries, especially China, food safety is quite literally a matter of life and death. Organics appeal to both sets of concerns.

So when researchers at Stanford University issued a study suggesting the additional health value derived from organics was illusory and quite possibly contrived, it caused quite a stir.

A few years ago, organic advocates would probably have been devastated by the criticism from one of the world's most prestigious universities. Not any more.

Critics of the study challenged the researchers' methodology while other commentators, such as the one below, raised pertinent questions about the vocabulary employed to communicate what may well have been a bias or predisposition inherent in the study.

Either way, notice has been served. Prominent academics and 'experts' no longer get a free pass when it comes to matters of popular concern. The internet has democratized knowledge and communications. And we are all healthier for that. JL

Curtis Brainard comments in the Columbia Journalism Review:

“Healthier” is a word the media often use without enough care, and that shortcoming was on full display during last week’s coverage of a study examining the nutritional value and presence of contaminants in organic versus conventional foods.

Should YouTube Censor the Anti-Muslim Video Sparking World-wide Violence?

YouTube and its parent, Google, are faced with a difficult choice.

Their policy has always been quite publicly defined. Nothing will be censored unless it contains hate speech, advocates violence against others or is the subject of a local law banning specific content.

The video "Innocence of Muslims" is subject to none of those conditions. But it has sparked rioting and violence around the world that have left four American diplomats dead as well as rioters and security personnel in a growing list of countries.

The dilemma is whether to moderate its own policy in the face of the physical dangers to human beings the video has sparked - or whether to stand firm in honor of the best traditions of free speech, civil liberties and civilized discourse.

Most of the commentary on the 'net has castigated YouTube for taking the video off in Egypt and Libya where the violence began. The critics' claim is that YouTube and its parent company, Google, have already violated their principles by caving in to extremists' cynical manipulation of popular will in those nations. But then it is easy to be critical when you are sitting in the air-conditioned comfort of your handsome, comfortable office or home in the placid safety of New York or San Francisco.

Others believe that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary action. You take the video off the net as a matter of public safety in a volatile world. And then, of course, there are many Muslims who claim to be genuinely offended by a deliberate attempt to insult the holiest evocation of their faith.

The challenge is that in a world of global communications, certain messages may seem obnoxious but tolerable in some parts of the world but terminally offensive in others. This controversy is exacerbated by the fact that some of the protest is now and has been in the past (such as the cartoon controversy in Denmark a few years back), manipulated by elements intent on using it to further their political, ideological and military ends.

The free speech advocates are right to be concerned about the longer term implications of censorship. Is every image or statement offensive to one group automatic grounds for deletion? And is it utterly self-serving? Will Muslim groups support the deletion of images offensive to Judaism? We already know the answer to that question is a caustic no.

The problem is that many governments are using the riots as a way of currying sympathy with the mob. They claim, wink-wink, that they'll move their security forces in when things have calmed a bit. The manipulation of public opinion against 'the other,' any other is as old as history. It has had its most recent, horrific uses in Germany, Bosnia and Rwanda, among others.

YouTube is not the UN. But it has derived much of its success from its globalism. In the world of modern, instantaneous communication but ancient cultures and beliefs, it may have to consider revisiting its standards to reflect its arguably unwanted but undeniable power. JL

Ari Melber comments in The Nation:

The protests against the now infamous YouTube video disparaging the Prophet Mohammad have thrust YouTube, and its parent company Google, into a tough situation.

While the company says it values free speech and usually only removes videos that violate its policies, it is experimenting with a deliberately inconsistent approach to the crisis surrounding the video, “Innocence of Muslims.”

How the Peripheral Becomes Central: Apple, Islam, Economics and the Unified Theory of Everything

Second year in a row: Apple introduces a new phone. Which, in many ways, is not all that different from last year's model.

Except for one thing, that most people think is peripheral, literally and figuratively. Until it becomes The Point.

Last year's controversy was about SIRI, the voice-activated assistant that was considered a toy-like after-thought. Except that it dominated the conversation and defined the new model.

This year? The new adapter. Which renders obsolete all previous adapters as well as all the connections to all the other Apple devices you might own, never mind the adapters in all the hip hotels and clubs in the world that finally got around to providing universal Apple connectivity.

Meanwhile, back in the rest of the world that doesn't orient its life around new phones (shrinking though its size and influence may be), there are riots in what last year were considered those brave and praise-worthy peripheral societies that produced the Arab Spring. In Europe, the affluent, central countries like Germany, France and the Netherlands are trying to figure out what to do with the nations no the periphery - Greece, Portugal, Spain et al - that are imploding economically.

So, maybe Apple is doing this as part of some global deep wave theory of change. Maybe the periphery is where the future gets revealed. We thought that convergence was where it was at. The end of history. Universal power sources. One platform fits all. But maybe that was bunk. Maybe Steve was right. His way or the highway. You dont want to fork over another $29 on top of whatever you're paying in yuan, euros, pounds or dollars? Fine, flash your Nokia and Android to your friends and watch them grimace at your humiliation.

Maybe all these seemingly peripheral changes in peripherals reveal something profound about the future as well as conceal something not so profound about the present. Like, that we're not quite ready for whatever the next big thing is but we have to produce a new phone or a new government or a new economic plan to keep our customers/voters happy.

Politics, economics, technology and $29 adapters. Who knew?JL

Andrew Leonard comments in Salon:

A hotly contested presidential election hits the stretch run, a deadly foreign policy crisis breaks out in the Arab world, new census figures prove that the richest Americans are still gaining on everyone else… and yet one of the most alarming stories of the week (judging by my perhaps unbalanced Twitter feed) appears to be the news that Apple’s iPhone 5 will come with a brand new dock connector

What's the Difference Between Invention and Innovation?

The history of technology is replete with stories of companies that had a great idea but didnt know quite what to do with it.

Xerox PARC, the celebrated Silicon Valley-based R&D center is the most famous of these. Its staff and the creative genius they unleashed are legendary in the tech community, both for the brilliance of their inventions - and for the fact that others often benefited far more than did the parent company that paid for it.

There have been other fonts of innovation over the last century including RCA and Bell Labs. But the increasing prominence of Apple's SIRI has drawn attention to a once secretive company whose primary function is to win government contracts in order to help the US military realize its technological dreams.

SRI International, the company that spawned the idea that became SIRI has a distinguished provenance. SRI originally stood for Stanford Research Institute and was the university's research arm. It was eventually spun off in order to provide greater opportunity to become profitable and it has achieved that goal.

SIRI is emblematic of the company's focus on innovation rather than 'mere' invention. The notion is not so much to be the cleverest (though that doesnt hurt)or to come up with cool new stuff, but to be sure that whatever is being created is intended for a market that enables both SRI and its clients to secure a financial return while solving a problem that may enhance other commercial opportunities.

This focus on practical applicability has assured a steady stream of new business while financing ever more audacious experiments that lead to even newer and potentially profitable new fields. It is quite an innovative business model. JL

Dan Friedell reports in Fast Company:

SRI International, the brains behind Apple's Siri, has launched a dozen consumer products since its digital assistant got famous. We venture inside SRI's labs to find out why you haven't you heard of any of them.

Ignoring the Obvious: Why Economics Cannot Acknowledge the Triumph of Finance

Paging Dr. Pangloss.

In 'Candide' Voltaire created a character who stated he believed that whatever was happening around him represented the 'best of all possible worlds.' This included such catastrophes as the Lisbon earthquake and tsunami of 1755 that killed between 10,000 and 100,000 people. The devastation was so comprehensive that no one has ever been able to calculate the final toll with certainty.

The recent economic unpleasantness sometimes called The Great Recession hasnt killed that many humans, as far as we know, but it sure did a number on the global economy. As the following article articulates, however, the economics profession has so far largely refused to address how so many esteemed advisors from its discipline could have been so wrong. Nor has it made many meaningful changes to what passes for received professional wisdom based on this experience.

The reticence to acknowledge the results - if the word failure is too harsh and judgmental for polite society, then perhaps 'unanticipated outcomes' will suffice - has many sources. Embarrassment. Professional courtesy. Protecting one's own. The fact that the finance industry probably endows many of its academic chairs and continues to offer juicy consulting opportunities. One could go on.

But the financialization of the global economy has not been a success for most of the world's population and the institutions that inhabit it. At some point, that fact and the reasons why will have to be honestly elucidated. We're waiting. JL

Yves Smith comments in in the Naked Capitalism blog:

The economics discipline has for the most part managed to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room: that of the role that the financial services industry has come to play.

Astonishingly, even though the reengineering of the world economy along the lines preferred by mainstream economists resulted in a prosperity-wrecking global financial crisis and a soft coup by financiers, the discipline carries on methodologically as if nothing much had happened. And one of its huge blind spots is its refusal to acknowledge the role of banking and finance in modern commerce

Is Your Workplace Industrialized or Humanized?

The soul-deadening nature of traditional management practices is an easy target.

In fact, it has become a cliche. Insensitive bosses with anger-management problems, inflexible rules, calcified procedures and an overarching culture ripped right out of 'Father Knows Best.'

It is hard to know to what extent that ethos has survived the past 20 years of technological innovation, globalized competition and tsunamis of downsizing that have left a few stunned survivors to complete with the help of a random laptops the tasks that dozens used to accomplish. Certainly the selfishness of senior executive compensation in the face of almost universal economic suffering suggests that the mindset exists even if the practices have been papered over by facile references to team work.

But those who work now, even in the hip, open, collaborative workplaces personified, at least theoretically by Google et al, also risk a different kind of threat. It's root is that very technology and the flexibility it offers. 24-7 can be an opportunity to manage one's own time - or it can mean always on, always tethered.

The notion that Apple products somehow represent freedom of thought and action is more than somewhat diminished by the knowledge of incandescent Jobs-ian verbal abuse of underlings and his demand for total control of the business' every aspect.

The stories coming out of Zynga about megalomaniacal founders and the equally searing management horror stories from a host of other allegedly 'new economy' avatars suggest that the twists of human personality and emotion can transcend even the coolest, most bleeding edge atmosphere.

Technology can set us free. But it can also enslave us. Whether it humanizes or industrializes a workplace has less to do with the devices than with the mindset of those who use them. JL

Jody Thompson comments in the Cali & Jody Blog (hat tip Greg Satell):

Are you a PC or a Mac?

You remember those commercials, right? Talk about the ultimate way of "humanizing" your company. Apple personified it's product as a hip young person you could relate to (at least, who their target market would relate to), and personified their competitor as a stiff, boring spreadsheet geek who didn't "get it."

Tech Design and Human Behavior: When Did Addiction Become a Good Thing?

Ethics and design.

The issue has been lurking out there for a while but we've ignored it, largely because we're so fascinated by the marriage of technological wizardry with behavioral manipulation. It's astonishing what people can be convinced to do without their realizing it.

But how is this different from what marketers have done for ages? From the earliest dealers in grains and fruits, to rug merchants, encyclopedia sales and TV pitchmen ('call now, operators are standing by...'). And why now?

Well, scale is one reason. The 'net has given us the ability to reach vast new audiences instantaneously. Unlike TV or radio or other media, there is no regulatory oversight governing truthfulness. So, the impact may be greater and the damage, when it occurs, both more widespread and harder to correct.

Secondly, there is that queasy human reaction to being manipulated without realizing it. Tell us partial truths, disguise the downside? Caveat emptor; let the buyer beware. Do your homework, check your sources, take responsibility. That is the mantra of the new age. Corporations have offloaded that burden on the rest of us, claiming somewhat virtuously, that self-governance makes for a stronger economy and probably makes us better people, too.

We could quibble with that, but in the service of greater convenience we have largely capitulated. The problem in technology and internet commerce comes with the absence of transparency. The lack of any explanation, let alone sufficient. Is it legal? Probably. Is it moral? Depends who you ask. Is it a positive development? We'll have to see. But we have some experience with this in the world's housing markets: Ireland, Spain, China, the UK, the US. And it ended up crashing the economy. The questions raised by the article below therefore pose some worthy questions the implications of the answers to which hit us where we live. JL

Jason Dreha comments in GigaOm:

Tech companies have become increasingly adept at manufacturing desire, but to what end? Behavior designer Jason Hreha argues that the industry needs to seriously consider the impact of its products. Are we helping our users lead better lives, or are we making them compulsive, impatient and distractible?

How Green Is My Cloud? Tech Companies, Cloud Computing and Energy Use

This started as a weak signal. But the heavens are starting to rumble thunderously.

The questions about the energy usage required to power cloud computing were initially considered by many the concern of an obsessed minority. Their worries were sublimated by fascination with the technological potential, the financial opportunity and the strategic implications for corporate competition.

But this is becoming a mainstream concern. Executives take pains to address it even when not asked. Press releases emerge. Articles are written. Analysts assess the countervailing claims.

The reason, as so often happens with environmental and sustainability issues in business, has less to do with what is right and more to do with what is efficient. There are two primary impacts: one is cost-related. Energy use reduces margins, which reduces free cash flow and affects however one measures profit. Which, in turn, impacts stock price performance, compensation and executive longevity. Talk about hitting someone where it hurts...

The second set of issues has to do with brand and reputation. Most tech companies, more than other corporations, like to be thought of as clean. That is usually how their founders were brought up and how their education and their peer-group have inclined them. It is also how many of their customers and, increasingly, investors like to be perceived. So in the global battle for pre-eminence in the tech sphere, every new issue is an opportunity and a threat. The opportunity is to convince others that what you are doing is smart AND good. The threat is that something bad will happen, you will be blamed, your brand sullied, your honor besmirched. Which might also affect stock price and those related factors.

Instinct and self-interest will prevail. The companies are playing catch-up because this was not top-of-mind when the trend broke. But they get the message. And they know that if they falter, plenty of observers will feel free to announce it to the world. JL

Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss comment in Scientific American:

Why is Greenpeace upset with some leading tech companies for so-called “dirty cloud computing?

Twilight of the Elites? America After Meritocracy

Has America been failed by its elites?

Or more to the point, has it been failed by the system that has produced them for the past three quarters of a century?

That system emerged to replace historical reliance on caste and privilege. It was formulated to promote a feature of American life which appeared to be the fairest, most democratic and meritocratic: education. The presumption was that education favored no one who did not have talent, intelligence and the willingness to work to achieve excellence against a common set of standards.

The problem, as Professor Marshall Meyer of the Wharton School noted, is that 'metrics begin to degrade the moment they are announced because everyone affected begins to game them.'

And how.

Universal education may still be available, but there are circles within circles. Private schools, private tutors, legacy admissions to 'need-blind' competitive institutions, cultural biases in nationally-administered standardized tests. And that's just to get to the starting line. To be considered for the elite professions in finance, law, medicine, commerce and yes, even government. Beyond that, the benefits of distinguished lineage have been supplanted by the web of relationships based on school ties, friendships and common experiences.

The sense of entitlement may be all the more entrenched because those so annointed believe that their achievements were merited, not the random luck of bloodlines. As has become clear the system has been gamed and those who have the money or connections prevail.

The bigger problem, however, is the result. That nation is riven by factions who truly despise each other. The economy is faltering, the country's standing in the world has receded and faith in the future is at a low ebb. Cheating and self-dealing are rampant. Investors flee the equity markets because they are so notoriously tilted to favor insiders. Whatever leaders the system was supposed to have produced either did not heed the lessons taught or emerged due to factors other than ability.

So the question is what the post-meritocratic world will look like. Despite their evident disdain for each other, both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street factions agree that the elite are out only for themselves. And the French, Chinese, Russians, British, et al, have done no better.

What we can say with some assurance, however, is that whatever new system may replace the old - and that is not even certain - a new elite will emerge. What we can hope is that, at least for a time, before they begin to favor their own kith and kin, that they take to heart the lessons from this experience and try to build a more inclusive and effective system than the one they will try to replace. JL

The Samuel Goldman comments in The American Conservative:

“Elite” wasn’t always a dirty word. Before the 19th century, the term described someone chosen for office. Because this typically occurred in the church, the word possessed distinctly ecclesiastical connotations. The pre-Victorians transformed a word imputing religious status to individual persons into a collective noun with class implications. By the 1830s, “elite” referred to the highest ranks of the nobility.

Those meanings are no longer primary.

How Google Builds Its Maps - and What That Means for the Future of Everything

Why would you bother?

That is the question that arises when one realizes the effort, the sheer scale of the enterprise required to create, update and improve Google Maps.

And no, the answer is not that they think maps are cool. Or that the company is public-spirited and just want to help people. Though both may be true.

The answer, to the extent that it can be sussed out, is that Google is locked in a Death Match with the world's largest, most iconic brand. Apple. To survive, let alone prevail, it needs to optimize the variables that allow it to compete effectively in the race to global tech dominance.

For Apple, those assets include design, hardware manufacture and the execution of strategy that arcs from conceptualization to delivery of products that dont just work well, but invent and then set the standard for entire classes of technology. And to those who think that is not so special, the graveyard of entrepreneurship and innovation is overflowing with companies who managed to do one, but not the other.

What Google does really well is identify, collect and manage information. Lots and lots of information. Organizing and applying that information in ways that consumer/citizens can use it to their advantage is their strength. The advent of mobility as a Truth of modern living has helped their cause because it means that knowing where one is, where one wants to go and what one may find along the way is not just useful, but a source of revenue and competitive advantage.

Arch-rival Apple has sensed the same tremor, which is why it is morphing iTunes into networks. Control may be an outmoded concept, but maximizing one's leverage is still an imperative.

So, when you casually start figuring out where your friends are or where they might want to be, based on what you tell them, remember the vast quantities of intelligence and strategic direction encapsulated in those thumb-strokes. In the misty future you - or your offspring - may even be driving cars or traveling on other modes powered by that knowledge. Assuming Google plays it right, it's going to be a long, happy journey. JL

Alexis Madrigal reports in The Atlantic:

The company opened up at a key moment in its evolution. The company began as an online search company that made money almost exclusively from selling ads based on what you were querying for.

But then the mobile world exploded. Where you're searching has become almost important as what you're searching. Google responded by creating an operating system, brand, and ecosystem in Android that has become the only significant rival to Apple's iOS.

McDonalds Goes Vegetarian

OK, slightly exaggerated headline.

No, McDonalds is not eliminating meat. Put the epinephrine away and tell the ambulance dispatcher it was all a misunderstanding.

But they are opening their first all vegetarian restaurants. In India.

What's really interesting about this is not that they are opening these two locations in a country where eating meat is a religious taboo for many. Acknowledging local tastes is just common sense when you are a global corporation.

The mind-blowing aspect of this decision is how it may juice their business in the US, Europe and other carnivorously inclined markets. Organics are one of the fastest growing categories in food. As the population ages in most developed countries, the urge to prolong life becomes fiercer. So eating healthier has become a movement, which helps explains the exponential growth of locavore, greens-oriented cuisine.

In addition, businesses have noticed that when they offer products or services for one market, particularly when advertised online, demand emerges in markets for which the items were not intended and in which they are not available. At first.

Levis, among others, noticed this when it created smaller, tighter, less expensive jeans for what it thought was the Chinese market - until orders from other parts of the world starting pouring in.

So Mickey D's may be experimenting in a safe place where they know demand is present. But they have their eye on the prize, which is all those consumers who think the company's offerings have been too fatty and unhealthy. Until now.

And PS, yo. French fries are potatoes. Which are vegetables. So dont be questioning their street cred in this market. JL

The Associated Press reports in the Chicago Tribune:

McDonald's Corp., the fast food chain that brought the hamburger to the world, is opening what may be its first vegetarian-only restaurants.

Buying Access to Innovation: Corporations Invest in Start-Ups

Make versus buy.

That is one of the classic questions posed to first year MBA students. The notion is whether it is more cost-efficient and effective to invent and create something or to simply buy it from someone else, presumably a smaller, nimbler and more focused entrepreneurial business. But the analysis is not simple, because it entails assessment of myriad inputs and outcomes that contribute to value - many of them intangible and reputational: employee motivation, inculcating a culture of innovation, strategic choices, competitive implications.

Recently the trend has been to buy. Investors want returns now. Bonuses, stock options and job security depend on short-term performance. Companies claim that they dont 'get paid' for sponsoring research with a medium to long range outlook.

So they become 'strategic investors.' Which is investment-banker speak for someone who will overpay because it is easier to do that than to actually go to the trouble of thinking up and producing the product or service themselves.

We have seen the results most clearly in the pharmaceutical industry where the cost and marketing effort are so gargantuan it is believed that only new drugs with billion dollar or euro sales potential - or higher - are worth the effort. So the big pharma companies invest in little bio-tech start-ups (or their somewhat more developed older siblings)in order to grab some of that performance on what they consider to be the cheap.

So now its tech's turn. And the timing couldnt be better! Facebook killed the IPO market. VC investors are in the fetal position. So who decides it's the perfect moment to catch some of that ol' Silicon Valley magic? Why it's corporate America. They are sitting on piles of cash, too worried about the future to risk their executives' compensation on the uncertain outcome associated with actually investing in something productive themselves. So they are opening offices in the Bay Area, taking lunches and breakfasts and generally letting it be known that they have cash to burn for the right idea.

How will this turn out? History suggests this is a transitional movement. The global corporations can not buy enough innovation to really gain strategic advantage. But it does give them something to do until their belief in the future returns. JL

Evelyn Rusli reports in DealBook:

New York, London and Hong Kong are common addresses for blue-chip multinationals. Now Silicon Valley is, too.

From downtown San Francisco to Palo Alto, companies like American Express and Ford are opening offices and investing millions of dollars in local start-ups

The Social Media Paradox

Social media is such a ripe target.

The breathless hype. The overeager advocates. The self- promotional ethos. And the under-performance personified by the disappointment in Facebook, Groupon, Zynga and a host of other new-age avatars.

The critics are legion and occasionally number this blog among them. But they are characterized by a paradoxical conflict. Which is that their success as critics is dependent upon - and one might fairly claim - created by the very medium they so enthusiastically scourge.

There appear to be elements of discomfort and self-doubt in all this. Taking advantage of something one professes to despise will do that. But there is also some honest reflection on the false claims and misdirection so conspicuously prominent in the medium's essence.

The following essay, by Bob Hoffman, eloquently captures that paradox. He is an veteran advertising guy who has created an online persona called The Ad Contrarian and he has benefited mightily from his critique of social media myopia in his industry. He articulates why it can work for some, but probably wont work for most. And his honesty is as valuable as his clarity. JL

Bob Hoffman comments in his blog, The Ad Contrarian (hat tip Greg Satell):

I was invited to speak at a social media conference. The hen was in the fox house. My presentation was billed as a "fireside chat" between the organizer of the event (a guy I like and respect, Jason Falls) and myself.

The first question Jason asked me went something like this... "You have been critical of the social media marketing world from the get-go, yet you use it… quite well I might say. What's your point of contention and how can you reconcile that with your prolific use of the medium?"

Are Groups More Rational Than Individuals?

We have come to believe in the wisdom of crowds.

Even as technology and globalization have put ever more power and knowledge in the hands of the individual we mistrust his or her ability to act in their own rational self-interest.

But the results of additional research suggest that the outcomes are not so clear cut. That, in bowing to the great uncertainty of human endeavor, it depends.

This is, naturally, extremely frustrating to those who like their future secure and their facts irrefutable. The problem is that all that knowledge and power in the hands of more individuals has created greater instability because the additional information has led too many to confuse wattage for wisdom.

The dramatic growth of group-oriented enterprise, from social networks to crowd-funding venture capital has reinforced this bias.

So the larger question is how, when and why the differences occur. It is probably impossible to categorize all of the various instances in which these forces may come into play. The most logical approach is to understand that they exist and that presuming optimal - or sub-optimal - behavior is probably never a sure thing. JL

Timothy Taylor comments in his blog, The Conversable Economist:

A decision maker in an economics textbook is usually modeled as an individual whose decisions are not influenced by any other people, but of course, human decision-making in the real world is typically embedded in a social environment.

Chinese Market Success May Prove a Challenge for Apple

Size matters.

And in China, that has two implications. One has to do with market share. The other with screen size. One of which is decreasing and one of which is increasing - and they are most emphatically related.

Questioning Apple's success is generally considered the province of the ill-informed or intellectually challenged. The company simply doesnt lose - at least from the perspective of those whose world view encompasses the past five years and the continental confines of Europe and North America.

But the reality outside that happily affluent slice of demography is somewhat different. Apple's Chinese sales have risen consistently, as the company will be first to tell anyone who will listen.

Which has driven them to an exalted SEVENTH place in the Chinese market for mobile phones.

Yes, you read that right. Seventh. Behind Samsung, Nokia (!), Lenovo and a bunch of other Chinese brands.

Apple advocates anticipate that the iPhone 5 will change all that. Isn't there always a 'this time it's different' chorus? But there may be a structural challenge for Apple on top of the financial challenge. First, the Chinese economy has slowed demonstrably. This is not to say their run at global leadership is over, simply that it is taking a breather, like most economies must do from time to time. But Chinese consumers have less to spend and costs matter to them. Even in the affluent major cities.

A separate but related structural development may cement Samsung's lead. As the following article points out, the mobile phone is now, for all intents and purposes, the computer in China. Which brings us back to size and specifically to screen size. Apple's is among the smallest on the market. And it is also among the most expensive. Which is not a healthy strategic combination. On top of that, Asian support for Asian brands may be a significant force in determining retail success.

Apple has proved itself nimble, intelligent and ruthless when necessary. Adjustments will be made and the race is far from over. But nothing is forever and as in every aspect of life, little things matter. JL

Abe Sauer reports in Brand Channel:

If leading rumors are true and the iPhone 5 increases its screen size from 3.5 to 4 inches, it will still be smaller than Samsung's--as well as smaller than products from LG, HTC and Huawei.

Why does this matter? Because in China, the mobile phone is now the computer.

How Apple's and Google's Digital Mapping May Be Mapping Us

Privacy is no longer the issue.

We conceded on that one eons ago - or whatever measure is relevant in digital time.

But questions are being raised about whether the ubiquity of mapping technology and our dependence on it is changing the way we view the world economically, politically, militarily, diplomatically and, well, personally. In other words, are the assumptions that go into presenting maps and the data included with them - or left out - somehow altering how we think about the world around us?

It is probably too soon to answer the question. And this is not to suggest that either Apple or Google or any of their competitors (with the possible exception of Amazon...) have a conspiratorial master plan for global domination. But it is not clear that we want their assumptions to be our assumptions. Especially for those who live outside the United States and work outside the world of large corporations. Because the concern is that that is precisely the world view being communicated, however subtle and understated the presentation may be.

Whether this rises to the level of generalized, popular and, eventually, organized expressions of discontent remains to be seen. The likelihood is not great, given society's acquiescence to most other trends that enhance convenience. But it will be interesting to see whether the questions being raised are being heard - and that companies involved, given their focus on solving problems in order to expand market opportunities - may actually pay attention. JL

Oliver Burkeman reports in the Guardian:

Digital maps on smartphones are brilliantly useful tools, but what sort of information do they gather about us – and how do they shape the way we look at the world?

What Is This Money Thing Anyway?

It's all about the Benjamins.

Or at least it was until their value and that of their brethren in euros, renminbi, yen and a host of other currencies began to raise questions about substance.

To the extent that the financial crisis and recession have generated discussion about Meaning, it has come not from anguished calls to fairness, but from the fact that creditors could not count on being paid what they were owed. A system that had relied upon Gentlemen's Agreements (backed up by the turgid prose of legal documentation)suddenly discovered that its assumptions might no longer be valid.

In addition, the dramatic rise of the internet and with it, technological interfaces controlling credit, debit, transactions wealth transfers and the like became increasingly dominant. Even military experts were stumped by the question of how to protect the wealth of nations whose physical presence had largely morphed into bits and bytes.

Even cash is becoming obsolete as mobile phones become wallets.

So, as the following article attempts to explain, money is about rules of engagement. About the very human need for organization and systemic regularity. Chaos and uncertainty are more expensive than the alternative. Which, come to think of it, may be why money tends to support government rather than not. JL

So questions about the purpose of money

Sell on News reports in Macrobusiness via Naked Capitalism:

One of the consequences of economics pretending to be a science, when it is not, is the tendency to attempt to explain financial behaviour from its base constituent parts, rather as a physicist might build up a picture of a compound from its molecules. This repeatedly results in observations that are either banal or based on circular arguments. And once those observations are generalised, taken beyond their thought experiment circularity, they become consistently misleading.

Content Is No Longer King? The Rise of Visual Social Media

Content was supposed to be king.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to our love affair with literacy. Or, more accurately, our fling.

Actually, two funny things happened: Steve Jobs reminded us that design and visual presentation can sell; while mobile phones changed the way we look at the world.

Smaller screens, on which we have begun to view everything, made it harder to read both the fine print as well as the large. How things looked, how they grabbed our attention and communicated their essential being, became more important than what was said about them. And in our ADHD world, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and even Instagram reminded us that the unique essence of any message could be condensed with a bit of effort, a camera and a smattering of creativity.

Will it last? Whatever does? It's here now and businesses have to respond. Marketing and communications companies - and their clients - have begun to register that simply making an add small enough to fit on the screen of an Android or iPhone does not make it effectively mobile. In fact, it may be the opposite of what is required.

Fortunately, we homo sapiens have gotten pretty good over the centuries at figuring out how to communicate representative messages using illustrations rather than vocabulary. The combination works even better, if that can be managed, but we've had a lot of practice what with war, religion, family, emotion, work and entertainment to stimulate demand. Iconography R Us.

Businesses that adapt will probably flourish. Those that remain wedded to the beauty of their own verbosity may be in for an unpleasant surprise. JL

Ekaterina Walter reports in Fast Company:

Social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest have ushered in visual marketing as the breakout trend for 2012. When it comes to their products, businesses are learning to show, not tell, and visual content sites are fueling our desire for beautiful photography and sensational design.

Two years ago, marketers were spreading the maxim that "content is king," but now, it seems, "a picture really is worth a thousand words."

Is Wall Street Waging War on Government? Bondholders vs Everyone Else

One of the great Broadway musicals of all time was called 'Oklahoma!'

It was a grand spectacle about the settlement of the American west. But it had several subplots based on themes of great antiquity, one of which was the competition for land between grazers and settlers. The song that symbolized that conflict was entitled "The Farmer and the Cowboy Should be Friends." But they werent. And they couldnt be because they both wanted the same thing.

Which brings us to 2012. The fire this time is between bondholders and public employees: fire fighters, police, teachers, road repair crews, solid waste disposers, clerks, registrars and the full panoply of service providers who maintain our civilization.

The bondholders appear to be afraid of the future. They do not see enough reasons to believe there will be sufficient growth to continue to give them reasonable returns on the debt securities that make up a substantial portion of their investment portfolios. That outlook may change, in fact, probably will change, but arguably not in the next few years.

The implication is that those in competition with bondholders for the cash flow from public funds: public service, employees and the pensions they have earned, are under attack. Teachers, never noted for living a lifestyle of the rich and famous are accused of being overpaid. Pensions earned over a lifetime by fire fighters and police are called untenable - even though their growth has been planned for. Library hours are cut back and in some cases eliminated. Public parks and beaches are closed. Infrastructure is allowed to deteriorate, affecting public safety. Support for higher education funding and scholarships is challenged while even support for public education is questioned.

The harsh reality appears to be that those who can afford to pay for these out of their own pockets no longer believe in the promise of a better tomorrow for all, once a solid foundation of the American Dream (and the Greek, Irish, English, French...). And this at a time when the income and wealth gap are as stark as at any time in history.

But the fight is a classic human conflict: the proverbial battle over the water hole in an arid landscape. Limited resources and lots of claimants for them. Whether the holders of capital will ultimately prevail is not clear. There seems to be a demand for basic services that even the most ardent deficit fighter can not eliminate. The bondholders, however, have already changed the framework of the debate: that all of these services and goods once considered the glory of democratic society are now being questioned is a sign of that and of the limits to their future growth. JL

Michael Hudson comments in Naked Capitalism:

The pace of Wall Street’s war against the 99% is quickening in preparation for the kill. Having demonized public employees for being scheduled to receive pensions on their lifetime employment service, bondholders are insisting on getting the money instead.

It is the same austerity philosophy that has been forced on Greece and Spain – and the same that is prompting President Obama and Mitt Romney to urge scaling back Social Security and Medicare.